7 Dead, 3 Wounded In Shooting At Oakland School.

[Bakis]

Have said it before and will say it again.

It would be moronic to ban people from owning guns in the US today. The availability of illegal guns are already flooding the country.
It would only punish the lawbiding citizens.

Guns are retarded and I am damn happy I live in country where gun laws are strict and we dont have the problems that the US has, but as I just mentioned above, it has gone too far in the US and at this point it would be unwise to ban privately owned guns.

[styopa]

If there were any active efforts by anyone of note to roll back gun rights maybe that would make sense.

As is its just the NRA ginning up more support with boogeymen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign
$4 million budget (by themselves, not including their fellow travelers)
28000 members

That's not an "active effort"?

Here's footage in which (not yet) Attorney General Eric Holder calls for Americans to be “brainwashed” out of their support for gun rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0 - and he was selected to be Attorney General.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization founded and funded by Mayor Bloomberg, dropped a whopping $325,895 on lobbying in 2010 in NY. Bloomberg himself penned the editorial "Washington needs to stop cowering before the gun lobby"
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...#ixzz1rjzYFe5D

Mayor Bloomberg of NY != person of note?
2010 not "active"?

Here is a short clip of Obama in 2004 on gun control. He agrees that the second amendment means…something, but beyond that, the details get hazy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8fAR...layer_embedded

It may not be #1 on the Democrats' legislative agenda but it most certainly is on their agenda and has been since the 1960s. They've been burned badly electorally trying to attack it head-on, so they're simply reluctant to say bluntly what they mean to do. Instead they pursue lateral measures such as CoBIS, and the otherwise-inexplicable eradication of the regular market-dump of aged military ammunition or increased registration requirements (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...s-in-u-s-.html) by executive fiat.

(FWIW this is exactly like the Republicans' efforts to kill Social Security and Welfare programs - they don't dare come right out and SAY it, but if one would have to be deliberately blind to believe that they don't have this motivation.)


Constantly repeating the mantra that "Obama has EXPANDED gun owners rights" doesn't really convince anyone but the frothing faithful at DailyKOS. AFAIK the only possible case where this would be true is in his signing legislation that simply made federal parks subject to their state & local laws in regard to CCW permits, and that's pretty specious.

[Zoranon]

Yep, what Styoppa said, the fact that Dems are not actively promoting gun control legislation at the moment does not mean they don't want to, they just know that public opinion is against them on this issue.

[Extrazero8]

Yep, what Styoppa said, the fact that Dems are not actively promoting gun control legislation at the moment does not mean they don't want to, they just know that public opinion is against them on this issue.

Some hills are not worth dieing over. That is of course until it is.


Once the majority of Dems think they wont lose more votes than they will gain over gun control then they will start doing it again.

[Svifnymr]

I'd call building up fear and paranoia for personal gain unreasonable.

This is also the same NRA that decided that requiring people get a permit to conceal carry was unreasonable.

There are states with concealed carry without permits, not an issue. In general, the NRA has been in favor of "shall issue" concealed carry licenses though.

The same NRA that fights gun bans in bars.

Most of the "bar" stuff is more about if someone is not drinking, or as the case in some states, when a resteraunt might legally be considered a "bar" because of the amount of alcohol served in a portion of it.

Reasonable the NRA is not.

They disagree with you on an emotionally charged issue. I'm sure they'd consider you unreasonable as well. It's like during the Clinton years when the President didn't get his way and he'd cry "partisan politics". "Well, why don't you agree with THEM than", yeah, not gonna happen.

Partly also, it comes down to the idea that the pro-gun folks are opposed to any compromise, which was the same arguments made on the various gun-laws that have been passed through the years. Each generation a new law was presented as a "reasonable restriction" and opposition was painted as not compromising. (1934 gca, 1968, 1994 being major laws, as well as several executive orders and "closet deals" to close off importation of firearms and such)

[Extrazero8]

Partly also, it comes down to the idea that the pro-gun folks are opposed to any compromise, which was the same arguments made on the various gun-laws that have been passed through the years. Each generation a new law was presented as a "reasonable restriction" and opposition was painted as not compromising. (1934 gca, 1968, 1994 being major laws, as well as several executive orders and "closet deals" to close off importation of firearms and such)

It's not about what restrictions gun owners have agreed to in the past. To anti-gun people it's all about getting more restrictions.

When gun owners say "we've agreed to previous restrictions and we're done" to anti-gun people they view it as unreasonable. It's hard to get a compromise out of "no".

[orderschvank]

you know what amazes me

some random kid can kill 7 people and wound 3

and like 4 cops can put 28 bullets into a guy and not kill him lol... the cops are either horrible shots ore the most skilled marskman alive

[Extrazero8]

you know what amazes me

some random kid can kill 7 people and wound 3

and like 4 cops can put 28 bullets into a guy and not kill him lol... the cops are either horrible shots ore the most skilled marskman alive

Umm... 43 years old isn't a kid.